State Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, and other GOP legislators have jumped on a national bandwagon aimed at opting out of national health reform state by state. “We were created to have state sovereignty,” Landwehr said. “We were not set up to have the federal government tell the states who, what, when, where and how.” But their Health Care Freedom Amendment requires two-thirds support in the Legislature and majority approval at the polls, which can be hard to come by in Kansas. And if the constitutional amendment prevailed and Kansans were protected from federal health insurance mandates, would they find it any easier to get and keep insurance and access affordable health care?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
234 Comments
I posted this awhile back and it gave us insight to Pelosi care.
———————————–O’BAMA Health Care – The mother of all unfunded mandates
Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said he feared Congress was about to bestow “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”
“Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage,” added Mr. Bredesen, a former health care executive. “It’s a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and their children. It’s not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid.”
Mr. Bredesen was far from alone in his concern. “As a governor, my concern is that if we try to cost-shift to the states we’re not going to be in a position to pick up the tab,” said Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, also a Democrat.
“I’m personally very concerned about the cost issue, particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around,” said Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat who served in the Clinton cabinet and ran for president against Mr. Obama.
CNN
————————-
You see, all three Democratic Party Governors expressing concern about these mandates not being totally funded.
It’s even worse now with states like Hollyfornia tens of billions of dollars in debt.
Now there’s a he11 of an idea. Let’s opt out! That way, we can pay for everybody elses health care through our taxes and we don’t get any of the benefits.
Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Way to go, Kansas!
Brenda Landwehr R Wichita practices HER rugged individualism working a Government job. Isn’t she the same person who commented that people could pay for their own health care if they didn’t have cell phones?
Landwehr bragged her proposed constitutional amendment would assure “…nothing about health care will change.”
So all you CONs who’ve alleged you believe … health insurance reform is needed, just not this….” might think about that.
“Pre-existing conditions,” random dropping of insurance, anti-trust exemption for insurance companies… this proposal should be called the Leave No Insurance Company Behind amendment.
““We were created to have state sovereignty,”
I’ll be GLAD to opt out of my status as a Kansan for access to health care.
I don’t see this opt out movement going anywhere. Most folks see the need for change in the health care system. It’s the extent of that change that is the question.
But isn’t Harry Reid pushing an opt out option on the public option? This would seem to be a cop out. Just trolling for votes from legislators who don’t have the courage of conviction and want to put the consequences of decision on someone else.
And Obama can’t decide what to do in Afghanistan. I see a pattern. Weren’t these people elected to make decisions?
“I’ll be GLAD to opt out of my status as a Kansan for access to health care.”—BlueJay
Do it parasite….do it. Get the hell out and go to a socialist country. You contribute nothing here anyway.
Is Landwehr really that out of touch? The alternative being that she’s on the payroll of the insurance industry. Probably the latter, since our premium money has been getting spread pretty thick on politicians and pretty thin on benefits-$7,000,000 a week for pols lately- way too much cash for her to be missing out on!
““We were not set up to have the federal government tell the states who, what, when, where and how.”
Brenda dear? Please check out the equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Oh no doubt you can keep Kansas in the dark. But you can’t keep all of us from seeing the light.
“I’ll be GLAD to opt out of my status as a Kansan for access to health care.”
Time to walk the walk. Leave.
Nothing is free. People will pay for this in higher taxes.
Kansas is cutting services to people using medically social services now because Kansas does not have the money to pay for the services.
Washington is talking the talk but will send the bill to the states.
Here is what the ‘experts’ say about having the government run our health care….and they should know.
http://www.youtube.com/user/catholicvoteaction#p/a
If I recall correctly,”Boxlock20″ —
Our friend “BlueJay” cannot purchase health insurance — at ANY price — due to an alleged “pre-existing condition.”
I’ve met “BlueJay.” He seems relatively healthy to me. But he can’t get health insurance because health insurance companies have determined him a risk.
Just what is the insurance industry supposed to be involved in, anyway? Risk, maybe?
Well, not with their exemption from anti-trust laws.
As a state representative, Brenda Landwehr gets some of the best health care coverage in Kansas and the nation. She’s got hers, and everyone else can pi$$ off.
And some want the incompetent Federal government taking over our health care. Look at how well they did with this.
Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24K per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091028006345&newsLang=en
The result of this program was dismal, and this kind of performance with health care would wreck the American economy.
The thing about the new ‘opt out’ provision of the Health Care reform is that states cannot opt out of paying the taxes, regardless if they participate in the program or not.
The other unreported mandate of the Health Reform bill is that nothing will happen for four years. So states will be paying into for four years before the legislation is put into play.
I wonder if legislators can keep their greedy hands from the new funds? Probably not…
Monkey,
BlueJay can’t or won’t PAY for health care.
Is his son unsurable as well, why is he on the dole.
Don’t know why Republicans are so upset about health care reform. Many Cons on this blog have tried to give the impression that they’re wealthy, or wealthy business owners. Private insurance isn’t going away. You can do your own opt out and buy your own private insurance. We know you’ll be morally bound to do that. We sure wouldn’t want you to have to depend on our worthless crapppy government.
“Boxlock20″ –
It’s odd how you choose to attack “BlueJay” just to, well, attack “BlueJay.”
I don’t know the details of “BlueJay’s” entrepreneurial enterprise. Maybe he charges too little for his services. Maybe there are others who charge less.
All you — and any of WE Blog CONs — know is he has qualified for S-CHIP protection for his kid.
Looks like “BlueJay’s” priority is his kid, rather than going 24/7 for business. Y’know, family values.
CONs hate family values.
We see it all the time on WE Blog.
“BlueJay can’t or won’t PAY for health care.”
______________________________
Cons spend way too much time worrying about BlueJay’s personal situation.
You should be thankful. If it weren’t for BlueJay and people like him, you Cons would have nobody to feel superior to.
I wonder how many of you Cons would be able to survive in BlueJay’s shoes.
CONs hate family values.
———–
Monkey, please tell us about your experiences raising children. I’m trying to decide how much weight I should give to your opinions on family values. Right now, I’m having trouble the keep that weight from floating away.
XXX
Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:28 am | Permalink
“BlueJay can’t or won’t PAY for health care.”
______________________________
Cons spend way too much time worrying about BlueJay’s personal situation.
You should be thankful. If it weren’t for BlueJay and people like him, you Cons would have nobody to feel superior to.
I wonder how many of you Cons would be able to survive in BlueJay’s shoes.
————————-
Most people as they grew into their adulthood planned for their future.
BlueJay didn’t.
Some of the people who have bought Brenda Landwehr:
Abbott Labs 400; Aetna 500; American Century Services Corp 100.00; American Family 800; AHIP 350; American Inc 350; American Insurance Assn 500; AstraZeneca 500
Brought to you by the Letter “A”
Paid over $8000 in “campaign consulting” fees by the Loganbill campaign – Thomas Witt
“Looks like “BlueJay’s” priority is his kid, rather than going 24/7 for business. Y’know, family values.”
“Family Values”? You mean like lying to his son?
“I’m also going to tell him that the President WANTED to bring a message of great hope but that the Republicans would not let him. He’ll never know any different.”
BlueJay,
I’m proud of you! All these people both on this thread and others worrying about you and you aren’t participating in their gossipy nonsense. Way to go!
Amend the Constitution of Kansas to avoid health care reform?
Is this the “Freedom FROM Health Care Amendment”??
Are they out of their mnds?
“Brought to you by the Letter “A”
And there are 25 more letters with lists? :-) Probably some of the letters have names of insurance companies, right?
Linda, her finance reports are alllll public record. I’m sure many of the other letters of the alphabet are populated with insurance industry lobbyists buying off their favorite right-wing moron. I just don’t have the time or the stomach to dig through it.
Kansas will enjoy all of the costs, and none of the benefits, but at least we’ll have State Soverignity.
“Freedom FROM Health Care Amendment”
Makes as much sense as saving blastocysts FROM research!
Ya know, so they can be thrown away out back where nobody has to acknowledge their destruction.
Out of sight, out of mind. And that’s how deep the conviction is too.
(especially the stomach. ugh.)
I wonder how many of you Cons would be able to survive in BlueJay’s shoes.
—————————————————-
Which shoes are those?
Welfare receiptient?
If that’s all you aspire to it’s not to difficult to survive.
We’ll call the opt out legislation “Freedom to Die with Dignity!”, that ought to cinch it.
Phantom, the cons don’t want death with dignity. They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering. It’s all part of “God’s plan” donchaknow.
“All these people both on this thread and others worrying about you and you aren’t participating in their gossipy nonsense.”
“Gossipy Nonsense”? Are we reading the same threads? How many Palin Post has BJ made this morning. And you say he is not participating in gossipy nonsense. Wow.
thomaswitt–
So, Landwher is guilty of something because of her campaing contributors? Her contributors are the eeeevil insurance companies, so she is eeeevil too? Can we hold all politicians to the same standard? I wouild be more than happy to do that, and walk down that road. Wanna come along?
“Phantom, the cons don’t want death with dignity. They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering. It’s all part of “God’s plan” donchaknow.”
Simply put—you are lying donchaknow.
“They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering.”
Are you sure? I thought it the Republican Plan was “Die Quickly”.
Maybe Grassley was wrong and you are right. Who knows?
#
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:59 am | Permalink
Phantom, the cons don’t want death with dignity. They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering. It’s all part of “God’s plan” donchaknow.
———-
Just when you think a person has a brain.
Littlejohn,
One’s contributors makes one guilty of nothing. But Landwehr’s contributors are almost all lobbyists and PACs. Individual contributors are few and far between on her finance reports, with the health care being vastly overrepresented.
See for yourself: http://ethics.ks.gov/CFAScanned/House/2008ElecCycle/200810/H091BL_200810.pdf
Littlejohn, Hud, and Outlander,
Two words: Terri. Schiavo.
Four words thomaswitt.
You are a moron.
ThomasasWitt-
To words: So what.
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Two words: Terri. Schiavo.
————————–
Good point.
Republicans wanted Terri Schiavo to live.
Democrats wanted Terri Schiavo to die.
Ah yes. If you don’t like the facts, attack the person.
I love WEBlog.
“Terri. Schiavo”
“They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering”
Not even in the ball park. First, most people I know, and according to this blog, we are all CONS and worse, wanted them to let Terri Schiavo pass. second, Since she was brain dead, there was no agonizing drawn out suffering. If she was indeed braind dead, as was the argument, then she didn;t have any agonizing, or suffering.
Kansas teen dies while at Indianapolis convention
The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS – The mother of a Kansas teenager who died while attending the FFA national convention in Indianapolis says her daughter had contracted swine flu.
Shelly Merklein of Kiowa, Kan., says her 14-year-old daughter Lauren also had a preexisting heart condition. Merklein says Lauren collapsed in a hotel room on Friday, but wasn’t seriously ill until developing a fever a day later.
Lauren died Sunday at Riley Hospital for Children.
————
This young lady died as a result of the governments failure to have the vacine to protect her from this virus. I speak only for myself but I say keep the gov out of my healthcare. When have they got it right.
“This young lady died as a result of the governments failure to have the vacine to protect her from this virus.”
Let’s not go into histronics here. Don;t you think that statment is a bit much?
Senator Roberts, Kansas – is currently speaking on Health Care reform on CSPAN – 2
okobserver
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:22 am | Permalink
Kansas teen dies while at Indianapolis convention
This young lady died as a result of the governments failure to have the vacine to protect her from this virus. I speak only for myself but I say keep the gov out of my healthcare. When have they got it right.
________________________________
Okobserver, why hasn’t the private sector stepped up to the plate?
As I’m sure you know well, a vacine doesn’t happen overnight. IIRC, there’s about 6 weeks of incubation time. Can the private sector do better? Have they done better? Why not? Not enough profit?
The private sector has done nothing to supply the huge amount of vaccine we need. And you trust them with your health care?
Have y’all had a chance to look at Landwehr’s finance reports? Isn’t that fun?
Regular
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Two words: Terri. Schiavo.
————————–
Good point.
Republicans wanted Terri Schiavo to live.
Democrats wanted Terri Schiavo to die.
That is pure Bull Sheet
At the time the Schaivo incident was happening I was doing a thesis for an ethics class. I decided this was a good one to look at.
Point 1: The husband who was living with another woman and had two children with her stood to gain at least a million dollars on her death.
Point 2: She had a family that were willing to take over her care completely.
Point 3: There have been people who came out of ‘vegitative’ states after many years. We had one of those cases right here in Kansas.
My conclusion was that no one who stood to benefit financially should be making the final decision on life and death.
The libs like to paint this as a black and white issue. It wasn’/isn’t.
Also has nothing to do with this argument unless it is thrown in as a red herring.
“This young lady died as a result of the governments failure to have the vacine to protect her from this virus.”
Let’s not go into histronics here. Don;t you think that statment is a bit much?
#
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Ah yes. If you don’t like the facts, attack the person.
I love WEBlog.
————–
Sure thomaswitt. You come in here with: “the cons don’t want death with dignity. They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering. It’s all part of “God’s plan” donchaknow”, and you expect treated with kid gloves? That was hardly an invitation to polite discussion, was it?
The Schiavo case had nothing to do with what is being discussed here but since twitt brought it up…
I was doing a paper for an ethics class at the time this case was happening.
My conclusion after looking at all of the facts:
Point 1: The husband stood to gain almost one million dollars on her death. He BTW had moved on with his life and had a ‘wife’ and two children.
Point 2: Her family offered to take over her care and release him completely from any respoinsibility.
Point 3: Patients in ‘vegetative’ states had awakened after many years. We had one of those here in Kansas at about the same time.
Point 4: My conclusion was that no one who stood to gain financially should be making this life and death decision.
This is what he gov wants to do for us now. Call them death panels or whatever else you want to call them. I personally don’t want gov in my health care decisions.
In Ks. the measure of a man is how long he can go between doctors visits, and how many teeth he’s missing. Leave us alone big gov.!
Sorry for the double post. It said the first wouldn’t be posted.
Yes LJ I think that was an overstatement. I was just following the lead of the left and using their logic.
LOL.. the government had more rights than Terry Shiavos’ husband… What a laugh!!!!!
littlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:33 am | Permalink
“This young lady died as a result of the governments failure to have the vacine to protect her from this virus.”
Let’s not go into histronics here. Don;t you think that statment is a bit much?
________________________________
Littlejohn,
Many points for an honest and forthright comment. You tell it like it is.
thomaswitt-
Sorry, I don’t really care about campaign donations by whom. I was told not to worry about that by many liberals when I questioned them about certain democrats and their contributors. The mantra was “a candidate can;t control who donates to them” Fine.
Isn;t that guilt by association? Haven;t we been told over and over again in defense of certain Democrats that that isn;t fair…never mind the mindnumbing mantra about Bush and his associations?
In any case– I simply don;t care. We could go on tete a tete for weeks comparing donors and whose donors have more influence, and on and on. My thoughts….I don’t give a rats ass. But do drone on.
By the way, after their first election, in my opinion, they are all bought and paid for by somebody.
okobserver
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:34 am | Permalink
The Schiavo case had nothing to do with what is being discussed here but since twitt brought it up…
My conclusion after looking at all of the facts:
Point 1: The husband stood to gain almost one million dollars on her death. He BTW had moved on with his life and had a ‘wife’ and two children.
Point 2: Her family offered to take over her care and release him completely from any respoinsibility.
______________________________
Okobserver, I had a problem with that, too.
“On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo’s condition) offered $1 million (USD) to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to cede his guardianship to his wife’s parents. The offer was rejected.”
From Senator Roberts address to the Senate on the proposed Health Care Reform bill.
———————-
40 percent excise tax on high cost insurance
80 percent will come from payroll taxes
Individual Mandate is an excise tax.
Means IRS will tax you if you don’t buy a health care plan approved by the government
– Increase of Roll of IRS in Health Care Reform
500 billion dollar tax increase supervised by the IRS
— No money for expansion in IRS to administrate the Health Care Cop Role, which means that a future bill increasing the size of the IRS is not yet appropriated and flying under the radar of the American Public. Possilby billions of more dollars in expense not added to the cost of the health care reform bill.
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:59 am | Permalink
Phantom, the cons don’t want death with dignity. They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering. It’s all part of “God’s plan” donchaknow.
———-
XXX my comment about the vacine was tongue in cheek about this comment by twitt.
I would say this girl was in a high risk group and should have been immunized. I just had two grandkids survive H1N1 and they only missed 2 days of school each. Weekends helped.
okobserver
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:59 am | Permalink
Phantom, the cons don’t want death with dignity. They want death with long, agonizing, drawn-out suffering. It’s all part of “God’s plan” donchaknow.
———-
XXX my comment about the vacine was tongue in cheek about this comment by twitt.
I would say this girl was in a high risk group and should have been immunized. I just had two grandkids survive H1N1 and they only missed 2 days of school each. Weekends helped.
_______________________
Sorry okobserver, I guess I missed the irony. I’ll be more careful next time.
Glad to hear the grandkids are ok. My best to them.
DavidB
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:43 am | Permalink
“On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo’s condition) offered $1 million (USD) to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to cede his guardianship to his wife’s parents. The offer was rejected.”
—————-
David you pick and choose well. He would have still been married to her. Unable to marry the mother of his children. And BTW the insurance money set aside for her care by her insurance company went to him on her death. You have to look a little closer than the sound bytes the media throws at you.
Her family wanted to care for her. All he had to do was bow out. He even refused to let them bury her in their family plot.
Back to work for me. Have a great rainy morning.
The Republicans sure wanted to make decisions concerning Shiavo’s medical care. They passed a congressional act – over the objections of the Democrats. Bush signed it.
The husband was following his wife’s wishes. Even the court agreed.
“Yes LJ I think that was an overstatement. I was just following the lead of the left and using their logic”
“XXX my comment about the vacine was tongue in cheek about this comment by twitt”
Sorry, I missed it too. Dangerous business unless it is really clear to irony or sarcasm is being used.
BlueJay–
The CON idiot who said that poor folks could afford health care if they just gave up their cell phones and cable was actually State Senator for most of Wichita, Susan Wagle.
This Piece of Work then denied saying it after The Eagle correctly quoted her. Too bad that she had BANNED any recording devices (like the two video recorders) that were thrown out of the public forum that would have backed up her version (or not).
But that’s “open government” RepubliCON style–let me pander to my right-wing base and then I’ll deny saying it later . . .
Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:33 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink
thomaswitt
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Two words: Terri. Schiavo.
————————–
Good point.
Republicans wanted Terri Schiavo to live.
Democrats wanted Terri Schiavo to die.
That is pure Bull Sheet
———————————–
On Palm Sunday, three Republican Senators voted on SB686, a special bill directing a Federal Judge in Florida to hear an appeal from Terri Schiavo’s parents regarding the 18 March removal of her feeding tube.
The Sun Sentinel reports that there were three Senators present for the “unanimous” vote: Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN ; Senator John Warner, R-VA ; and Senator Mel Martinez, R-FL.
The bill then moved to the House, where a simple majority of members was required for a quorum (there are 435 members) and where suspension of the rules required a two-thirds vote of those present. Democrats forced a roll call vote.
The bill passed 203 (156-Rs and 47-Ds) to 58 (5-Rs and 53-Ds) ; there were 174 members absent.
Only 16 Democrats voted yes.
Obama contends that “Nobody is going to pull the plug on grandma”.
However, in the Schiavo case, the, Democrats enthusiastically supported side who wanted to pull the plug. Coincidence?
RepubliCONs want to intervene in a family matter to force Terri Schaivo to live in a permanent vegetative state–whether she would have wanted it or not.
They want her to “live” such as it is . . . just so long as they don’t have to PAY FOR IT through taxes or any other way.
CapnAmerica
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink
RepubliCONs want to intervene in a family matter to force Terri Schaivo to live in a permanent vegetative state–whether she would have wanted it or not.
—————
The request was made by Terri Schiavo’s parents.
Regular,
The government had no business intruding on this,don’t care which side of the debate you are on,why politicize such a private issue?
All you are trying to do is attempt to put your side on a higher moral ground,ain’t working on me.
•Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:59 am | Permalink
Regular,
The government had no business intruding on this,don’t care which side of the debate you are on,why politicize such a private issue?
All you are trying to do is attempt to put your side on a higher moral ground,ain’t working on me.
———————————
You appear to be grossly misinformed on the matter Freebird.
—
From 2005: CNN
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) — A lawyer for Mary and Bob Schindler — who are fighting to have their daughter Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted — filed an appeal late Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the past has refused to hear the case.
Full Story Here
The case should have been thrown out to begin with, Terri’s wishes were being followed and that should be the end of the discussion.
•Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:09 am | Permalink
The case should have been thrown out to begin with, Terri’s wishes were being followed and that should be the end of the discussion.
————————–
You didn’t read the article did you Freebird.
Normally, I don’t help the lazy out, but in your case, I’ll make an exception.
The attending physicians stated that Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state.
However, Terri Schiavo’s parents had a neurologist examine their daughter and found she was in a ‘minimal state of consciousness’ – whatever that means in doctor language?
The point being, is that the parents fought for their daughters life with every means at their disposal, including the help of the Republicans in the Senate and the House of the Representatives.
That’s the way the law works, the spouse decides on when to pull the plug, not the children or parents. Schiavo should’ve had delegated that authority if she didn’t want her spouse to make the decision. It was none of anyone else’s business, esp. the gov.
It appeard to me the message from the legislators was not so much an opt out as it was the government should not mandate what health care coverage a person should have.
They said it should open up choices for people to purchase health insursance and choice on how it could be paid for.
Has anyone seen the language being proposed? I have not found it.
Didn’t Frist do a remote diagnosis and deemed Terry Cognizant?
Reular,
A question if you have made your wishes known re a terminal condition,do you want them followed or do you want the government to decide what is in your best inerest?
•Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Reular,
A question if you have made your wishes known re a terminal condition,do you want them followed or do you want the government to decide what is in your best inerest?
=============================
Let’s try this again Freebird -
The request was made on behalf of Terri Schiavo by her parents.
Yes, government assistance was requested
– by Terri Schiavo’s parents
It was Terri Schivao’s parents that iniated the government action.
Is this still not clear enough Freebird?
I can arrange for some crayons and a coloring book session later, if you so desire.
iniated = initiated
The real moral of the story here….If you want your wishes to be carried out….Fill out a living will or other end of life documents.
Freebird1971- Unfortunately, Terri did not have any such documentation. It was only her husbands word, and he was seen as standing to benefit by her passing. Hence the argument.
Make your wishes known in a legal document.
Make your wishes known in a legal document.
Good point LJ – I have one of those ‘living wills which specifies Do not resusictate (DNR orders).
Regular simple yes or no question,do I need to draw you a picture?
It was Terri Schivao’s parents that iniated the government action
The government should have refuased.
•Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink
Regular simple yes or no question,do I need to draw you a picture?
It was Terri Schivao’s parents that iniated the government action
The government should have refuased.
——————–
Why and on what grounds?
When an attorney solicits the court on behalf of a client, the government is obliged to hear or not hear the case. In the Schiavo case, the Supreme Court declined to hear it.
Left with no other options, that left legislative action of the parent’s of Terri Schiavo.
Yes or no to my question regular
Left with no other options, that left legislative action of the parent’s of Terri Schiavo
Here is novel idea follow the loved one’s wishes and keep the government out of something that is none of their business
Regular
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink
Make your wishes known in a legal document.
And if your family thinks you made the wrong choice should they petition the government?
Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:39 am | Permalink
Yes or no to my question regular
———————
Sorry, I don’t play the yes/no game.
Go find a Liberal weenie for that kind of game.
Let me make this simple for you Regular,the government has no business in deciding the fate of a person who has not been convicted of a crime and is in a terminal condition. The government should have told the family to work it out amongst themselves.
“Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system by neuropathologist Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, “irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.”[67]
Wiki
Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink
Make your wishes known in a legal document.
And if your family thinks you made the wrong choice should they petition the government?
————————-
What part of a legal document signed by me and so-witnessed do you not understand?
It’s irrelevant in the Terri Schiavo case anyway, there was no such document.
Just very hard for you to admit that you were clueless about the Schiavo case, isn’t it Freebird. :)
Freebird-
I agree once the courts had ruled, by refusing to hear the case, the government should have backed off. This was a case used by everyone within the government to push their agenda, and the patient be damned. And in this case, especially the Republicans. However, your comment
“And if your family thinks you made the wrong choice should they petition the government?” is fundamentally in error in this particular case. Their was no record of her ever making her wishes known, except the husbands sayso. There was no record of it anywhere else. He was perceived as standing to benefit from her demise. A conflict of interest to be sure. However, as I said, once the courts ruled, by not ruling, it should have stopped there.
That’s right I am dealing with a con weenie ,don’t know why I thought I would get a straight answer from you,guess I gave you too much credit
Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:44 am | Permalink
Let me make this simple for you Regular,the government has no business in deciding the fate of a person who has not been convicted of a crime and is in a terminal condition. The government should have told the family to work it out amongst themselves.
—————————
So you must be really angry about government Health Care reform and how they are going to force people to get health care or pay huge fines.
Or do you shovel manure and eat in the same location? :)
What I do uunderstand Regular is that you are no different from some libs on here,can’t give a straight answer to a straight question
Or do you shovel manure and eat in the same location? :)
Regular reverts to form can’t change someones mind so let the personal attacks begin.
•Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:51 am | Permalink
What I do uunderstand Regular is that you are no different from some libs on here,can’t give a straight answer to a straight question
———————
I explained myself very well in my posts.
Just because I don’t play the ‘Yes/No’ answer game, doesn’t mean I wasn’t thorough in my replies.
If you have any questions, just ask. But try not to squander both of our time with ‘finger wagging’. :)
So you must be really angry about government Health Care reform
No I’m not health care reform is needed but I will reserve my anger or pleasure until a final bill is revealed.
•Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink
So you must be really angry about government Health Care reform
No I’m not health care reform is needed but I will reserve my anger or pleasure until a final bill is revealed.
========================
Fair enough.
So, you are not angry that the Federal Government is interfering in private decision of choice in Health Care, but you are angry with the government in the Schiavo health care case.
Just as long as you can live with your own contradictions – then we’re cool and know where each stand. :)
So, you are not angry that the Federal Government is interfering in private decision of choice in Health Care,
When did that happen,did a reform bill pass?
Don’t know why you should be concerned about health care, by you servng in the military you earned your health care,something I don’t begrudge you,you earned it, but don’t you think affordable,not free,health care should be obtainable by everyone?
I too think the government had no business in the Schiavo case. Once the courts said they wouldn’t hear the case, that should have been the end of the government’s involvement.
Who here thinks the Schiavo parents could have kept this in the public eye, in the public domain without the complicity of Jeb Bush and others of influence? Situations that aren’t, and shouldn’t be, political are made just that for potential political gain by too many of our elected critters from every political persuasion.
I do appreciate that this situation brought attention to the need for legal documents to be in place so our wishes will be clear. That was the silver lining of this dark cloud.
Here is another potential silver lining — we could all agree to disagree and respect that each of us thinks differently. We could even admit out loud to one another that no one needs to be wrong — because there really is no need.
Freebird1971
Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Don’t know why you should be concerned about health care, by you servng in the military you earned your health care,something I don’t begrudge you,you earned it, but don’t you think affordable,not free,health care should be obtainable by everyone?
——————-
My rates for insurance will go up like everyone elses. Perhaps that’s why I’m concerned?
Who here thinks the Schiavo parents could have kept this in the public eye, in the public domain without the complicity of Jeb Bush and others of influence? Situations that aren’t, and shouldn’t be, political are made just that for potential political gain by too many of our elected critters from every political persuasion.
BINGO!
Leave it to the libs. There is a bush to blame for every one of their arguments.
Unfreakingreal.
And it is bush’s fault that obama can’t make a decision on troop levels.
And it is bush’s fault the dems can’t even get their whole party to vote on healthcare the same way.
And it is bush’s fault…
lindainks55
Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink
I too think the government had no business in the Schiavo case. Once the courts said they wouldn’t hear the case, that should have been the end of the government’s involvement.
———————–
Since you agree that the government had no business in the Schiavo health care case, why aren’t you concerned that the government will be forcing citizens to buy health care insurance or pay a huge penalty?
You are ‘agin’ government interference until you are ‘fer’ it?
I absolutely support the government saying each American has the right to choose from a menu of affordable and reliable (read regulated!) health care options. And because we already pay for those who choose not to be covered, I think we also have the right to make sure they don’t cost any more than the rest of us.
I do like the suggestion — I think suggested by a Republican — of opening the borders of states so insurance companies can sell their products nationwide. I think that would bring competition and be good.
Linda there was a lot more to this case than this blog has posted. I did extensive research on this case. Many factors were involved. A husband that said he heard his 26 year old wife say she didn’t want to live on a machine. No one else heard this. Her caregiver was in a living arangement with another woman and had two children with her. Said husband stood to gain financially when his wife died. She had parents who were willing to take over her care and release him from that responsibility. The money would then have stayed in her account to pay for her care.
The liberals don’t have any problem telling parents how to care for their children – vacines, treatment plans – remember recently the mother who was under indictment because she AND her 13 yr old son didn’t want to do chemo for his cancer.
What about those whose religion forbids injecting blood products and the parents are charged with murder when the child dies.
I’m not saying yay or nay but I am saying be consistent. Don’t fashion your opinion to fit your belief system and then tell others they should be more open minded.
Prayer of the Regular “God bless Sis, Niece and Me, no more, just us three!”
Free you might be hanging out with Will a little too much. Your reasoning processes are eroding. You sound like a lib this morning with impaired thinking abilities.
Affordable Health Care for America Act — H.R. 3962
The House Bill Summary: http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
The full House Bill in .pdf: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Start reading!
I’m thinking most if not all of his money went to the hospital, even with ins. an extended stay like that would be mind boggling.
How much does health care cost in Kansas?
How much does it cost in California?
Who knows better what Kansans medical needs are; a Kansan or Washington?
Same for California.
Problem with global (government run) health care is it doesn’t consider these factors. It considers how it will help the politician’s next race – both parties.
Phantom
Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Prayer of the Regular “God bless Sis, Niece and Me, no more, just us three!”
—————
Phantom why do all of your ‘arguments’ fall down into personal attacks.
Reg made a point that I shared that for liberals gov intervention is ok when it is something they approve of but if it isn’t then it is nutwing logic.
Linda even pulled in a Bush as her argument.
Will this never end for your guys.
Imagine – insurance companies can be so vile that this needs to be be made law:
SEC. 2754. PROHIBITION ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
A health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual market may not, on the basis of domestic violence, impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A)) with respect to such coverage.
Health care reform is going to happen,the only thing unclear is what form it will take.
I’m guessing the “Just say No to Ins. Reform” bandwagon is going to get just about as much traction as “We don’t want No Stinkin Stimulus” bandwagon.
Michael did not directly make the ultimate decision about whether Terri should live or die: he petitioned the court, asking it to act as Terri’s surrogate and determine what she would decide to do if she were able.[13] Schiavo’s husband insisted that she had expressed her wishes not to be kept on life support with no hope for improvement. During a trial in 2000, testimony was heard from witnesses on both sides to establish Schiavo’s wishes regarding life support. The court determined that she had made “credible and reliable” statements that she would not want to be “kept alive on a machine,” based on expert testimony, finding that Americans do not want to live “with no hope of improvement,” and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had “long since satisfied” the requirement that there be no hope of improvement.[15]
Wiki
Not the only thing unclear, Who will be the beneficiaries of it, and who will cut off their noses to spite their faces.
November 12, 1992 –
Judge Philip A. Federico signed a FINAL JUDGMENT that the plaintiff, Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A., as guardian of the property of Theresa Schiavo, an incompetent, have judgment in the amount of $ 1,434,081.30, and the plaintiff, Michael Schiavo, have judgment in the amount of 630,000.00 for sums let execution issue.
———-
Sometimes it is necessary to follow the money. In this case there was a lot of it. He received over 600 thousand with an additional 1.4 million to go to the care of Terri. Upon her death he received what was left.
Few people bothered to look at the complete picture.
As I said before if you want the gov out of healthcare decisions then don’t pass a healtcare bill that would give this authority to – wait for it – the government.
Freebird, My advice considering you know his MO would be to ignore Regular and not respond to him.
One of the side effects of Marriage is that your spouse automatically, becomes your executor, power of attorney, Guardianship ect. they get your inheritance, insurance, and make medical decisions, and so on. Parents and Children have no status unless given to them. That the conservative position appears to b, have government stay out of medical decisions, unless like the Shiviao case getting involved is in the conservative agenda’s interest. Also I think that if it was the Taxpayer’s footing the bill that the Republicans wouldn’t have so strongly gotten involved.
From the Kaiser Foundation, Ks. spends 14.4% of GDP on health care, while California spends 11% of GDP.
Regular
Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:49 am | Permalink
So you must be really angry about government Health Care reform and how they are going to force people to get health care or pay huge fines.
Or do you shovel manure and eat in the same location? :)
_____________________________
Well, at least he didn’t go for dog vomit.
Regular is so predictable.
Terri Schiavo?
She is a very good argument FOR public health insurance.
Why, the whole of the right conducted an ongoing and on air vigil for her. There was a special session of Congress called because of her. All of this and more for ONE woman…
…who was already dead.
You on the right oppose public health care because you want people answerable to their employers not just for their livelihood, but for their very health and life. SURELY, once you lose and we have a public option, we may then count on you to join the good fight and commit yourselves to due diligence to see to good health care for all? So us how truly pro life you are?
For Terri?
There are 380,638 words in the unassigned health care reform legislation.
“You on the right oppose public health care because you want people answerable to their employers not just for their livelihood, but for their very health and life”
Yeah, right.
Phantom
Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:45 am | Permalink
From the Kaiser Foundation, Ks. spends 14.4% of GDP on health care, while California spends 11% of GDP.
==========================
There are probably a lot of self-insurers in Hollyfornia, being as over 600,000 of them are millionaires.
There are only 2,802,134 people in the entire state of Kansas.
XXX one thing I learned from the Rush Limbaugh situation last week is that Wiki is a very unreliable source.
Much of the information in his file was put there by a law firm in NYC. It was unsubstantiated. I didn’t realize until then that anyone can go in and add information to a person’s bio.
To me this makes everything I read there now very suspect.
Look at their policy on making changes.
BTW I am only giving facts as I found them to be when I did my paper on this case. I found out much more than ever made the news headlines. As I said my conclusion was that in any case like this the person making the decision to pull the plug shouldn’t be the person who will benefit as he did financially.
From the Kaiser Foundation, Ks. spends 14.4% of GDP on health care, while California spends 11% of GDP.
What is the KS DGP? California’s? Will a KS doctor receive the same compensation as the CA doctor?
What are the cost of living differences? Tax differences?
Who knows better about a Kansan’s health care needs? A Kansan or Washington?
XXX one thing I learned from the Rush Limbaugh situation last week is that Wiki is a very unreliable source.
Much of the information in his file was put there by a law firm in NYC. It was unsubstantiated. I didn’t realize until then that anyone can go in and add information to a person’s bio.
To me this makes everything I read there now very suspect.
Look at their policy on making changes.
BTW I am only giving facts as I found them to be when I did my paper on this case. I found out much more than ever made the news headlines. As I said my conclusion was that in any case like this the person making the decision to pull the plug shouldn’t be the person who will benefit as he did financially.
From an interview with Michael Schiavo, Should’ve known if you dig deep enogh through the con b.s. you’ll find a money motivator:
Schiavo: I stuck by Terri’s side. I took care of her.
And during that time, he says he and the Schindlers had no problems. They remained close, united in their concern for Terri’s care.
But according to Michael, money would change everything. In November 1992, Michael sued Terri’s physician, accusing him of failing to diagnosis bulimia while treating Terri for fertility problems prior to her collapse at 26.
Michael says the jury award, about $750,000 dollars in Terri’s name, is what set the Schindler-Schiavo battle in motion— starting with a fight with Terri’s father in her hospital room on February 14, 1993.
Lauer: So, you say Robert Schindler walked up to you on that Valentine’s Day and says to you, “When am I going to get my money?”
Schiavo: That’s when the money was coming down. And then he asked me, “How much am I going to get?” I said to him, “I’m giving it all to Terri.” And then with some anger in his voice, he pointed at Terri and said, “Well, how much is she going to give me?”
“She’s not going to give you anything. The money is in trust with a guardian for her care.” So, he then he starts getting angry. And says he’s going to take over the guardianship. He’s going to get a lawyer. I’m like, “Well, if that’s what you need to do, go do it.”
And Mrs. Schindler jumps in front. “You know, he’s right. This is our daughter. We deserve money.”
Lauer: Talk about two sides to every story. You know that the Schindlers basically allege the same thing with you. They allege that it was only after the malpractice suit was settled and the money was placed in trust for Terri that you began the process of trying to get the feeding tube pulled from Terri. Because then you stood to inherit that money.
Schiavo: Matt, we offered them three times in writing, in the media, that we would give every cent of that money to charity in Terri’s name. The Schindlers were the ones that refused that. They didn’t want it to happen.
Enough about Terri, time to let her R.I.P.
Sol having been in insurance I can answer part of your question. We did have clients in many states and premiums were based on the economic stats of that area. Also doctors were paid at the prevailing rates of say Calif. even though the insured person was from KS.
Any gov plan would have to take that into account and this is something else they have glossed over.
Just spent an hour with the IRS, most of that time on hold only to learn that they are equipped to receive payments electronically but not reporting data such as quarterly 941s. I talked to 12 IRS people over a 4 day period to finally be told that this morning.
This is the kind of expertise we want to turn our healthcare system over to. I sincerely hope not.
Back to work.
SolDevVB
Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:58 am | Permalink
Who knows better about a Kansan’s health care needs? A Kansan or Washington?
————————
This is a typical con cop-out.
The right to healthcare in this country is NOT a “states rights” issue. Each state has had the opportunity to fix the healthcare problem. It hasn’t been done so now it’s time for the federal government to step and provide for the common welfare of ALL citizens of this great country.
Equal and equitable healthcare is a RIGHT for all citizens in the 21st century.
The insurance companies are not looking out for our best health interests, they are looking at their financial bottom line
The right to healthcare in this country is NOT
That part of the statement is correct. Health care is not a right.
The rest of that statement end-arounds the argument. Health care costs differently in each state. See OK’s post.
Equal and equitable healthcare is a RIGHT for all citizens in the 21st century.
Then amend the constitution. Until then, it is 100% BS.
The insurance companies are not looking out for our best health interests, they are looking at their financial bottom line
The
insurance companies areGovernment is not looking out for our best health interests, they are looking at theirfinancial bottom linepolitical careers.Fixed it for you. If you believe otherwise, you really need to take stock of all the politicians in DC and live in the real world for a few moments.
#
Regular
Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:51 am | Permalink
There are 380,638 words in the unassigned health care reform legislation.
==================================================
14 of which troll-monkey understands.
SolDevVB, you are a pathetic excuse for a “human being”.
You are a typical con with your “I’ve got mine so f*** you mentality”. Though I wish ill-will on anyone in particular, it would be fitting that one day you will get your just rewards for your con self centered arogance.
I DO live in the real world. Equal and equitable healthcare IS a right in this country. The constitution doesn’t need to be amended. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 allows or even mandates Congress to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE of the people. If that means a tax should be levied to pay for healthcare, so be it. I’m willing to pay my share to ensure every citizen has access to equal and equitable healthcare, are you?
Yes, Landwehr is that out of touch – and has been for MANY years. So, rather than be proactive and entertain the thought of reform, she joins Tim Huelscamp as the utra right CONS to just “opt out” and go with status quo. It’s nearly halloween, so watch the sky as she flies around on her broomstick.
“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 allows or even mandates Congress to provide for the GENERAL WELFARE of the people. If that means a tax should be levied to pay for healthcare, so be it”
let’s see what one of the prinicpal writers of the Constitution would say about it
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions”
Thomas Jefferson wrote
“Concerning the legislature’s authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: “[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”
Sounds like they might disagree with you.
SolDevVB, you are a pathetic excuse for a “human being”.
And the insults start early. Sure sign of a weak point.
provide for the GENERAL WELFARE
Where is my second boat? I’ll be needing a fuel efficient 4×4 extended cab to pull it too. It is after all for my GENERAL WELFARE.
I’m running low on beef tenderloin as well. Better get that government coupon pretty darn soon. It is after all my GENERAL WELFARE.
If you refuse to see that this is a political scam then you don’t understand politics in the least. Hope you learn before it is too late.
Really can’t believe you went for the GENERAL WELFARE. Amateur.
James Madison
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents”
I defer to LJ. You make a far better point.
Loved the Madison quote LJ. I heard one yesterday that I was familiar with but had forgotten:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have”.
My two fav’s:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” — Samuel Adams
___________________________________________________________
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds” — Samuel Adams
Not convinced the health insurance industry isn’t laughing at those opposing reform? Blue cross sent their members a notice they were raising premiums 11%. Then they sent those same members a notice asking them to oppose health care reform.
Blue cross controls 53% of the market and 98% of the individual market in South Carolina. In other words, no competition. Why? That’s easy: anti-trust laws don’t apply. Pretty much the same in every state. So what are the Republicans really afraid of: What they should be 100% for: competition.
If the health insurance market was subject to anti-trust laws, there would be more competition, and thus, lower premiums. By adding a government run health insurance plan, competition would increase to the point we would see affordable plans people could afford, and be protected from catastrophic medical costs. Of course, pre-existing conditions would have to be dropped as well, something the health insurance industry would fight tooth and nail: can’t have something cutting into profits off the sick and dying, can we.
If you want a link, go look for it-it’s out there.
JMWALKER-
What is the profit from the “sick and dying”?
What are the profit percentages of the EEEEVIL insurance companies?
What profit percentage should be allowed?
Where is the COnstitutional authority for that?
The ins. co. needs to go the way of Exxon, profits down 63%, guess what, they’re still in business!
Sol having been in insurance I can answer part of your question. We did have clients in many states and premiums were based on the economic stats of that area. Also doctors were paid at the prevailing rates of say Calif. even though the insured person was from KS.
Sounds like hogwash to me. If they were going to pay the Calif. hosp rate in ks., they’d be paying twice as much as the ks. rate. There would be no need for ins. companies to form exclusive relationships/contracts with the local hospitals. Then if while paying twice the local rate, they charged insureds according to the local economy, they’d be out of business in months, if not weeks. I call B.S.
“If the health insurance market was subject to anti-trust laws, there would be more competition”
and why are they not?
Legislation dating back to 1945.
Who was in charge?
President Democrat
Senate Democrats
House of Representatives Democrats
Phantom,
I guess I got lost in your response, but I think, in the long run, you made my point.
A doctor in CA performs a service “S”. The doctor’s cost of performing that service (cost of living, payroll, equipment, tax etc) is amount “A”.
A doctor in KS performs a service “S”. The doctor’s cost of performing that service (cost of living, payroll, equipment, tax etc) is amount “B”.
If government run health care is in effect, how much is each doctor paid for providing service “S”? How much do the patients pay for service “S” in each state? – In other words, if both patients had the same income, what is their premium under the government run health care?
The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the “business of insurance” as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation.
Health care in 1945 was different from the state of the industry today, sixty-three years later. Capiche??
“Health care in 1945 was different from the state of the industry today,”
Wow. yathink? so was every other industry.
So repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act. that’s how things are done. Any legislation that old probably deserves another look.
ah, in case you haven’t noticed it isn’t the 1700’s.
YOUR con interpretation of what the founders might have envisioned is no more correct than mine.
“YOUR con interpretation of what the founders might have envisioned is no more correct than mine.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Are you kidding me? Those aren;t my interpretations, they are quotes from the founding fathers.
It would make economic sense to pay at a discount to the prevailing rate in the individual State. I’m not sure how the medicare payment is calculated currently.
LJ
Your posting of quotes from the 1700’s doesn’t make them applicable to the 21st century.
“Your posting of quotes from the 1700’s doesn’t make them applicable to the 21st century.”
Sure it does….They helped write the Constitution. they knew what it meant, and said so.
And you. ahh. not so much
Do you REALLY want to go down the path of what was written in the 1700s isn;t applicable to today?
REALLY?
#
littlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
“If the health insurance market was subject to anti-trust laws, there would be more competition”
and why are they not?
Legislation dating back to 1945.
Who was in charge?
President Democrat
Senate Democrats
House of Representatives Democrats
=============================================
They’re working on it, since when the repubs held sway, they did nothing.
Let’s go down that path then LJ.
I’m always amused by con fantasies.
#
littlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
JMWALKER-
What is the profit from the “sick and dying”?
What are the profit percentages of the EEEEVIL insurance companies?
What profit percentage should be allowed?
Where is the COnstitutional authority for that?
=============================================
Where is the constitutional authority for the insurance industry making profits off the sick and dying?
What profit percentage should be allowed?
In my opinion, for the health insurance industry only: none. Pay them a set fee for running the program.
JMWALKER_
Fine. Let’s hear the arguments as to why they were exempted in the first place by Democrats, and why that isn;t working now. I got no problem with that. Let’s drop the 1900 page bullshift, and start with the repeal of the antitrust exemption.
The Democrats must have been in the pockets of the insurance companies…don;t ya think? /sarcasm off
“Where is the constitutional authority for the insurance industry making profits off the sick and dying”
They don;t. They make profits off the healthy. That’s how inusrance works. That still doesn;t answer the question…Where is the constitutional authority to limit a private companies profit margin?
“In my opinion, for the health insurance industry only: none. Pay them a set fee for running the program.”
They do get a fee….it’s called profit.
JMWalker
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
Where is the constitutional authority for the insurance industry making profits off the sick and dying?
What profit percentage should be allowed?
In my opinion, for the health insurance industry only: none. Pay them a set fee for running the program.
————————————————–
What about Doctors, Nurses, PA’s, anyone in the medical field?
You’re going kill off 15% of the country’s GDP!
The founders?
You mean THESE founders?
” we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Those are the final words in the Declaration of Independence. But it was ALSO a declaration of interdependence. Look through the Declaration and see how many times the word “our” is used. (And remember that that “our” put every living person in America in way of the peril of fight while any real benefits coming from same would only go to those included in “our”, namely landed white male gentry.) Those men knew that, as Ben Franklin said, “If we do not hang together, most assuredly we will hang separately.” SO well that they were willing to risk everything on the common cause.
On the otherhand. Mortuary’s make money off the sick and dying. Pharmacies make money off the sick and dying. Medical equipment companies make money off the sick and dying. Doctors make money off the sick and dying. Pharmaceutical companies make money off the sick and dying. bandaid companies make money off the sick and dying. Cold medicine companies make money off the sick and dying. See, really, you have tipped your hand. In your opinion, profit is the problem. You wish to have a nonprofit world, and the government reigns supreme. Good luck with that
#
littlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
JMWALKER_
Fine. Let’s hear the arguments as to why they were exempted in the first place by Democrats, and why that isn;t working now. I got no problem with that. Let’s drop the 1900 page bullshift, and start with the repeal of the antitrust exemption.
The Democrats must have been in the pockets of the insurance companies…don;t ya think? /sarcasm off.
================================================
And republicans aren’t in the pockets of the health insurance industry? They all are, or health care would have been taken care of years ago.
What difference does it make who was responsible, or why, for the exemption back in 1945? Both parties were as different as night and day compared to today’s parties. Why didn’t the republicans repeal it, if it’s the democrats fault? Pull another straw man out of your hind quarters. It needs to be repealed, and it should be a no-brainer to get 100% agreement from both sides. Bet that doesn’t happen by a long shot.
Phantom It is discounted from the usual and customary rate which is determined by taking an average price charged for each procedure.
The gov then decides what percentage of that charge it will pay and sets this as the approved amount. They then pay 80% in most cases of that charge. If a senior is lucky they have a supplement that will pay the rest.
Because the gov set the ‘approved amount’ they can cut the docs pay when they see fit and they do this frequently. What happens is that the docs and hospitals say they can no longer offer that service because they are losing money on it so that service goes away.
How will private ins compete with this form of price setting. They won’t. We will see them go under within 6 years at the most.
If having a public option is so important to the dems then they need to look at the pic honestly. The public option will soon be the only option. When this happens look at a huge tax increase on a huge increase in our national debt. All I want is honesty and a look by the powers that be at alternatives to their plans that are untried and unproven.
Some people think Medicare is free. Nothing can be further from the truth. The monthly prem for part B is 97.40 this year and will go up next year. A typical supplemental run from $150 to $300 per month and Part D runs in the $100 per month.
Most senior couples then would have premiums in the $650 per month range. They would also have co-pays on their prescriptions and then facing that dreaded ‘donut hole’ where they pay 100% of the cost of the meds except for the generics.
My husband and I years ago opted to look out for our old age by buying long term health care coverage in case we were unable to care for ourselves. This runs approximately $150 a month.
So a senior couple is already spending almost $1,000 a month for healthcare. The Pelosi plan will add to that and also bring in the young and healthy to tote the bill for some very needy but also for some not so needy but standing with hands out.
Reid and Pelosi along with Obama thinks they can glean over $500 billion dollars from medicare. There is fraud there to be certain. But not enough to fund this just released bill Pelosi has given us.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
What about Doctors, Nurses, PA’s, anyone in the medical field?
You’re going kill off 15% of the country’s GDP!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doctors, Nurses, and PA’s all directly contribute to providing actual health care to the patient. Can the same be said about the Insurers?
Insurers collect premiums, pay the health care providers, and skim off the top. They are largely unnecessary middlemen.
An excerpt brought to you by BlueJay from BlueJay’s revised edition of the federalist papers…
Blue Jay-
As has been pointed out time and time again by the liberals on this blog. The Declaration of Independence is not the foundation of the law of the United States.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
What about Doctors, Nurses, PA’s, anyone in the medical field?
You’re going kill off 15% of the country’s GDP!
==============================================
You really should learn to read. I believe I stated quite clear the health insurance industry only:
JMWALKER-
In my opinion, for the health insurance industry only: none. Pay them a set fee for running the program.
Are you clear on that, or do you need for me to write it in caps?
Most people don’t know.
The American Revolution was not a popular cause. Wars rarely are.
Those founders were socializing their cause to a lot of people who, good or bad, had no stake or interest in it.
Reid and Pelosi along with Obama thinks they can glean over $500 billion dollars from medicare.
That sounds like a pretty damn good place to start. Why don’t those two go ahead and pen that legislation and prove to the country that they can pen a decent bill and that that money is actually there.
Counting chickens and all.
JMWalker
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
Where is the constitutional authority for the insurance industry making profits off the sick and dying?
———————
JM is it the insurance companies making a profit you have a problem with or is it any company making a profit?
Insurance as a whole averaged 3.5% profit last year. This is a very slim margin for any industry. Granted they pay some of their execs too much. But also because medical cost have gone up dramatically.
I have said many times on here that until we attack the root cause of higher medical costs we are just whistling in the dark. Tort reform is never mentioned by the left but is one of if not the major reason for these increased costs.
We can’t start at the bottom to solve this problem. It has to be chopped down to size one step at a time and tort reform should be the first step.
#
littlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
On the otherhand. Mortuary’s make money off the sick and dying. Pharmacies make money off the sick and dying. Medical equipment companies make money off the sick and dying. Doctors make money off the sick and dying. Pharmaceutical companies make money off the sick and dying. bandaid companies make money off the sick and dying. Cold medicine companies make money off the sick and dying. See, really, you have tipped your hand. In your opinion, profit is the problem. You wish to have a nonprofit world, and the government reigns supreme. Good luck with that
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
True, but all of the entities you’ve listed make more money the longer the sick and dying live.
The insurance company makes more money if the sick and dying die quickly before they (the insurers) have to pay out a bunch in benefits.
Dear CONs–
The gov’t already runs health care for millions of Americans . . . it’s called “medicare.”
It spends about 1/10th of the administrative overhead that the grand and glorious private insurance does.
Americans want it and we’re going to get it.
Now get the hell out of the way . . .
JMWALKER
You brought up the party subject first in regards to the anti trust laws. Remember “That’s easy: anti-trust laws don’t apply. Pretty much the same in every state. So what are the Republicans really afraid of: ”
I just pointed out who was esponsible for the exemption, and it wasn;t Republicans.
I see no reason not to reexamine the issue, nor have I seen a movement from the Republican party to stop one. Perhaps you have?
Please show your work.
I read posts like those of solie and I think of the last GOOD Republican, Theodore Roosevelt.
Just for the record, the first President who advocated for national health care was TR.
I think TR would read about solie equating a right to basic health care with a right to own a second boat and want to kick his greedy butt.
Daniel
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
#
Doctors, Nurses, and PA’s all directly contribute to providing actual health care to the patient. Can the same be said about the Insurers?
————————————————–
This is in reference to insurance companies “profiting off the sick and dying.”
When actually nothing could be further from the truth. The payouts are on the sick and dying. That’s when the companies are losing money.
On the other hand, Doctors, Nurses, etc. make the most money seeing people when they are sick and dying.
So just trying to clarify the ethical dilema some seem to have with the health field in general.
#
littlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
On the otherhand. Mortuary’s make money off the sick and dying. Pharmacies make money off the sick and dying. Medical equipment companies make money off the sick and dying. Doctors make money off the sick and dying. Pharmaceutical companies make money off the sick and dying. bandaid companies make money off the sick and dying. Cold medicine companies make money off the sick and dying. See, really, you have tipped your hand. In your opinion, profit is the problem. You wish to have a nonprofit world, and the government reigns supreme. Good luck with that
================================================
Are you really that stupid? Where have I said at any time I wanted anything like what you just posted? I clearly stated health insurance companies only. No wonder Beck makes it big among the cons: their reading comprehension must be around zero. And these morons think (and I use that word very loosely) they know what the American people want? If you don’t know how to read, how do you expect to be able to write anything intelligent? Cons: monkeys at the keyboard.
“Now get the hell out of the way . . .
”
No.
“The gov’t already runs health care for millions of Americans . . . it’s called “medicare.””
Yeah, and it is going broke.
No go home and pout about the mean old cons, it really is the only thing you know how to do. By the way, how did that right wing hate group shooting up the seminary work for you today?
Ooops! Scratch the mortuaries. They obviously don’t make money until the sick and dying die. But the only get paid once per customer, no repeat business for them like the others.
“Now get the hell out of the way . . .
”
No.
“The gov’t already runs health care for millions of Americans . . . it’s called “medicare.””
Yeah, and it is going broke.
No go home and pout about the mean old cons, it really is the only thing you know how to do. By the way, how did that right wing hate group shooting up the seminary work for you today?
CapnAmerica
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
Dear CONs–
The gov’t already runs health care for millions of Americans . . . it’s called “medicare.”
It spends about 1/10th of the administrative overhead that the grand and glorious private insurance does.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
okobserver
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
…
Reid and Pelosi along with Obama thinks they can glean over $500 billion dollars from medicare.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LMFAO. And doing a wonderful job of it too.
When are they and SS going bankrupt again? LMFAO.
“Insurers collect premiums, pay the health care providers, and skim off the top. They are largely unnecessary middlemen”
Daniel you skipped one important step in your little equation. The insurance companies also assume the risk. Anytime the claims paid out exceed the premiums coming in they take a loss. It is private money that is at risk.
Now take that scenario and insert gov for insurers – what do you see. The loss will be taken by the gov won’t it?
But wait who is the gov? That would be you and me and all other working Americans. We will pay for that loss with added taxation.
Why is it libs just refuse to look at the total picture. You take at face value what your party leaders say even when they are proven to be dishonest in what they say.
Ask the hard questions and demand answers from your party leaders.
JM Walker,
I would be interested in seeing if you could even explain how the anti-trust law really works as you claim it does and how getting rid of it would do what you claim it would.
I mean, figuring that the insurance markets are primarily regulated at the state level…
ittlejohn
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
JMWALKER
You brought up the party subject first in regards to the anti trust laws. Remember “That’s easy: anti-trust laws don’t apply. Pretty much the same in every state. So what are the Republicans really afraid of: ”
I just pointed out who was esponsible for the exemption, and it wasn;t Republicans.
I see no reason not to reexamine the issue, nor have I seen a movement from the Republican party to stop one. Perhaps you have?
Please show your work.
================================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMN2AXyBsp0
#
Nathaniel
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
I would be interested in seeing if you could even explain how the anti-trust law really works as you claim it does and how getting rid of it would do what you claim it would.
I mean, figuring that the insurance markets are primarily regulated at the state level…
=============================================
Go clean your guns.
JMWalker
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Cons: monkeys at the keyboard.
————————————————-
LOLLLLLLL
You’re the one that doesn’t know the difference between a debit and a credit it would seem.
Otherwise you’d know insurance companies don’t profit off the sick and dying.
CapnAmerica
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
Dear CONs–
The gov’t already runs health care for millions of Americans . . . it’s called “medicare.”
It spends about 1/10th of the administrative overhead that the grand and glorious private insurance does.
Americans want it and we’re going to get it.
Now get the hell out of the way . .
————–
Medicare is already broke – You say Americans want it well I heard a bunch of American say no way this summer – so I guess your sentence should read -BJ and I want it so…
As for the remark to get out of the way – discent is a right that we all have under the constitution or didn’t you know that. Even Hillary Clinton recognized that.
Hope it isn’t American History that you teach.
JM Walker,
Whats wrong?
Not able to actually form a thought of your own outside of the cut and paste rhetoric you posted here?
“right to basic health care”
there is no such thing.
unless you plan on FORCING someone to become a doctor.
Granny,
“I just had two grandkids survive H1N1 and they only missed 2 days of school each.”
That’s nice to know your grandkids survived. I had an uncle who died in the 1918-20 pandemic of H1N1 that killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people. Don’t assume that because your grandkids lived through it that this strain is something to treat lightly.
Luckily I still have all my masks from the SARS pandemic of 2003.
#
Nathaniel
Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
Whats wrong?
Not able to actually form a thought of your own outside of the cut and paste rhetoric you posted
==========================================
Actually, the answer to your question is way too easy. And you should know that, but, as usual, you’re trying to insert something that isn’t there. Now go clean your guns.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
JMWalker
Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Cons: monkeys at the keyboard.
————————————————-
LOLLLLLLL
You’re the one that doesn’t know the difference between a debit and a credit it would seem.
Otherwise you’d know insurance companies don’t profit off the sick and dying.
==================================================
Well, there you go, kia. Now you can run for office. You’re way to smart for this blog.
Why do I waste my time here. I’m talking to the dining room table again. Guess I’ll go back to being banned.
Otherwise you’d know insurance companies don’t profit off the sick and dying.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
They do when the sick and dying patient dies. The sooner, the more profitable.
JMWalker
Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
————————————————–
Your problem appears to be capitalism, free market and profits.
I don’t have a problem with those or that you do.
I do have a problem with anyone taking socialist views and wrapping them in a box of somehow being more ethical when history proves the contrary.
Ins. co make profits off the healthy and by discarding the sick and dying.
Jed get a life and stop trying to pick an argument. Sorry to hear about your uncle.
I think this ‘cartoon’ applies to the Senate and House leadership as well.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cqgcnH1W5_k/SsRzr9XQmoI/AAAAAAAAAEA/Xkq6V1U1LJ0/s1600-h/cartoon.aspx
“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care, and so on. The only thing lacking…is freedom.”
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Medicare is not “broke.”
The point is America needs affordable health care that includes everybody under the umbrella and leaves no one out in the rain.
The current system is not working. But this is being fixed.
The House bill went online today. You may begin reading now.
“The point is America needs affordable health care that includes everybody under the umbrella and leaves no one out in the rain.”–David
David, yours is a ‘nice’ thought but it ‘ain’t’ going to happen like you think.
When has the government been able to run much of anything better than the private sector….never really.
Look at Medicare, broke or close.
Look at Social Security, broke or close.
Look at Amtrak, losing money hand over fist.
Look at the Post Office, also losing money.
Look at Cash for Clunkers, ha….cost to the taxpayer of approx. 24K per car.
Your, and all of our, freedom is slipping away David and you are too blind to see it.
What the DimLibs want is not what’s good for us but to place a hold on power and control over us that we will never be able to take back.
You are taking the bait, hook line and sinker.
I hope I’m wrong, really I do, but history predicts that I’m right.
285,000,000 Americans have healthcare insurance.
78% of Americans are satisfied with their present healthcare.
Most Americans believe whatever Obamacare and democrats do:
1. The quality of their healthcare will go down.
2. The cost of their healthcare will go up.
From those details, democrats still think they are doing us a favor.
Don’t fix what isn’t broken.
“Medicare is not “broke.””
Yeah [cough, cough] that’s why Democrat are going to pull count them HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS from the medicare program which serves our senior citizens.
You are one of the few posters here availed of Government care. Do you have any negative experiences to report? MY experience is that the care provided to my kids is FAR superior to what they had in the “free” market.
DavidB
Posted October 29, 2009 at 7:54 pm | Permalink
Medicare is not “broke.”
———————————————–
Source?
Most of the rest of the industrial world provides complete health care coverage for all of their citizens, at no or little cost. Why do the Con/Republicans object to providing the same for OUR citizens?
WSClark
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Most of the rest of the industrial world provides complete health care coverage for all of their citizens, at no or little cost.
———————-
I would be interested in knowing more about this almost free health care.
Do they conjure up spirits or is it an alchemy thing where they turn lead to gold?
“the care provided to my kids is FAR superior”
Bluejay did you have a baby? kid (s)?
Please do tell – what FEDERAL facility did they visit?
Afterall, you didn’t get “free market” care anywhere else to make such a claim.
Did they go to Canada?
“at no or little cost”
And after rolling a great BIG joint, and smoking it down, WSClark, was stoned out of his mind. At that point reality is lost.
And you can dream of tinkerbell and living in the land of oz, where everything is beautiFUL and free!!!
“Do they conjure up spirits or is it an alchemy thing where they turn lead to gold?”
I think WSClark is listening to an old Eagles album, that or the bible.
It wasn’t lead into gold.
It was water to wine…..
Little or no cost?
Is it Free or not?
So the Doctors, Nurses, and Hospitals don’t get paid?
Who makes the drugs? Workers make them for free?
Must be.
ON the BTSNBN you can see the stupid Liberal stare – if it’s from Government, it is Free.
They just can’t grasp where things really come from.
(Money trees)
“So the Doctors, Nurses, and Hospitals don’t get paid?
Who makes the drugs? Workers make them for free?”
Pass me some of what the democrats are smoking.
It must be some GOOD Sheat!!!!
You may feel free to confine yourself to ONE nic while you do not answer my question “American way”.
Do you have tales to tell us of your dissatisfaction with your Government provided health care? Have you taken your case to the “free” market to see if you can do better?
“American_Way” –
You’ve already been slapped around for your red-herring “free” health care lies.
But you’re back to it.
I think it was “Regular” who graced this forum with imagery of dogs eating their vomit.
WSClark
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Most of the rest of the industrial world provides complete health care coverage for all of their citizens, at no or little cost. Why do the Con/Republicans object to providing the same for OUR citizens?
————————————————–
Gotta love a free country.
Blue Jay/American_Way; Go to the NYTimes to-day and look up the article about kids with no insurance being 60% more likely to die in hospital. I can’t cut and paste and my ‘puter skills aren’t that great (obvious!), but go to the Blogs section and click “Prescription” for their health blogs. The report was done by Johns Hopkins covering a spread of years and should halt anyone wanting to compare insurance to grocery stores. I wasn’t surprised, just interested to a see the results presented such a class, scholastic outfit as JH which leans neither right nor left.
“WSClark
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Most of the rest of the industrial world provides complete health care coverage for all of their citizens, at no or little cost. Why do the Con/Republicans object to providing the same for OUR citizens?”–WSClark
What idiocy! Are you really that ’slow’.
That “no or little cost” health care is never low cost or free, but is paid for by increased taxes and in a much less efficient more costly way.
What it does is that takes freedom and health care decisions out of the individual’s control and gives it to the government.
“WSClark
Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Most of the rest of the industrial world provides complete health care coverage for all of their citizens, at no or little cost. Why do the Con/Republicans object to providing the same for OUR citizens?”–WSClark
What idiocy! Are you really that ’slow’.
That “no or little cost” health care is never low cost or free, but is paid for by increased taxes and at a much less efficient more costly way.
What it does is that freedom and health care decisions out of the individuals control and gives it to the government.
Sorry about the double post, the blog is acting strange and slow.
Brenda Landwehr and her husband own an insurance business – of course she doesn’t want the government ruining her business.
She needs to go – she should never have been on any committees that deal with insurance decisions or even the health and human services budget – she’s one of the legislators that approved the renewal and increase over the next 4 years in the privatization contractors contract!
She’s part of the broken system!